Under OEC 803(3), hearsay statements intended to prove the state of mind of a defendant are admissible.

Defendant appeals a conviction of DUII, arguing that the trial court erred in excluding hearsay evidence that was admissible under OEC 803(3), which tended to prove Defendant's "state of mind". Defendant was arrested for DUII when he was found intoxicated and in the driver's seat of a parked car. None of the witnesses, including the arresting officers, witnessed Defendant actually driving the vehicle. At trial, Defendant sought to admit hearsay testimony of his wife, who sought to testify that she had overheard one of Defendant's friends state that he had intended to drive Defendant home. The trial court excluded this evidence as hearsay. On appeal, Defendant argued that OEC 803(3) applies to this statement, and it should be admissible as a hearsay exception. The state conceded that the trial court erred. The Court agreed, and held that this evidence was important and its exclusion was not a harmless error. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings on Defendant's DUII charge, otherwise affirmed.